When was the last time your Tax Dollars went to funding Deficit Spending?

Money is inconsequential, wealth is not stagnant, and growth is not based upon inflation.

So.

 

What??????? Is this like a serious statement?

 

Who seriously gives a crap about acquiring money?

 

I do... if you have any money you don't want, I'll PM you my address.

 

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/whatwedo/what_we_do.htm


Our job is to borrow the money needed to operate the federal government and to account for the resulting debt. In a nutshell, we borrow by selling Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, as well as U.S. Savings Bonds; we pay interest to investors; and, when the time comes to pay back the loans, we redeem those securities. Every time we borrow or pay back money, it affects the outstanding debt of the United States.

We also provide reimbursable administrative and information technology services to other government agencies through our Administrative Resource Center (ARC).

 

Yes, this is all trivial since it's just "words". Now apply it to reality. Who are they borrowing from and what money is being used to purchase the treasuries from the Government. I'll give you a hint, you and I and the nonbank domestic public account for 1% of direct treasury purchases. 80% come from banks (70% from Primary Dealers) and 19% come from the foreign accounts at the Fed.

Now think about this logically. What money are the banks using?

 

Logic tells me that when a bank purchases a treasury note of any kind, regardless what money the bank is using for that purchase. That purchase is a LOAN from the bank to the treasury in exchange for interest. And when a bank redeems that treasury note, the Government pays that loan back to the bank, plus interest. And the government gets money from taxes or loans. Some some tax money is used on a daily basis to pay for redeemed treasuries.

 

what favor? All china and japan need to do is allow their currency to rise and all of the sudden they have a billion and a half new customers in china. The US is getting a free ride and it isn't fair to the rest of the world. The US is going to learn in the next couple of years what it means to really have to earn its keep instead of depending on the rest of the central banks around the world to keep bailing it out!

 

False, there is absolutely ZERO tax dollars that are used to pay for redeemed treasuries.

So if the bank loans money to the treasury, and the treasury credits our accounts, then the private sector has more money right? So why do you think they increase spending in a recession? To give us more money right?

And if a bank holds on to the treasury, when it is redeemed, they do not get "real" money in return for the treasury. They get interest payments, but the principal is a wash. That's how banks make money on treasuries, they get them at wholesale from the Govt, then they create a secondary market for the treasuries at a slightly higher yield.

But, the key thing to understand is, we have the money in our pockets before we buy the treasury from the secondary market. So therefore, Government spends money first before they take it out of the economy. Think about it!

 

Dan40 finally hit the nail on the head. If a bank LOANS money to the Government to purchase debt, then what does that mean for the nonbank public?

 

You're smokin' the same stuff that 'TFM' is smokin' on another thread.

When in the hell do you think banks get their money????

Its like the incredibly stupid things the odrama gang of idiots is now saying about food stamps. A dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy. That is as blatantly stupid as the utter nonsense you're trying to purvey. If the food stamp claim was correct, shouldn't everyone be on food stamps? And if your nonsense was correct, why have ANY taxes. Just borrow everything the government needs, and pay it back with imaginary magic.

 

Velocity of money, look it up.

Also, let me ask you the same question again. What money is the banks using to purchase these treasuries. You already said it once. Now I don't get how you are getting lost now. If the bank "loans" the money to the Government and the Government credits your account. You are "x" amount richer. And since that is high powered money, the nonbank public is "x" amount richer.

Taxes control inflation. They do not really fund anything in a fiat economy. Everything is driven by deficit spending in terms of asset/money creation. Amazing system we have!! And it's so amazing and complex that people honestly think we are $14.5 trillion in debt... when in reality we have $9.9 trillion floating around this economy spent by the Government! I say $9.9, simply because intragovernmental debt does not exist!

True story!

 

That is correct, but in effect, redeemed treasuries are paid for with new debt. Except in those rare instances when the Govt is running a surplus, in which case some is paid for by tax dollars.

 

No it's not, in the only instance we ever had a surplus, the principal on the public portion of the debt was paid off by intragovernmental debt. There was no decrease to the gross national debt. Not a single tax dollar went to paying off the maturing debt.

We've gone over this before, I know you have that one period of time where the debt was lower than before. And you know I have a quote from the Treasury that explains why that happens. So until we can get passed that point, we are at a standstill.

Not a single one of your tax dollars went to paying off maturing debt.

 

I'll tell you what. Let's save pages of cyberspace and wasted time and I'll just summarize how our discussion will go.

In trying to explain your silly, erroneous beliefs that you can provide no support or data for, you'll make some factual assertion like: "And the proof lies in the fact that for the past 40 years the national debt has never once decreased."

And then I'll prove beyond dispute that your proof and your assertion is completely wrong.

When I point it out to you, first you will try to ignore it. Then after pointing it out a few times, you'll try to dodge it by bringing up other matters. Then when I press you on it, you'll deny you ever made the statement. And when I prove your statement, you'll claim it doesn't matter.

I'll pass on wasting my time discussing things with someone who cannot be marginally honest, thanks.

ttp://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/200985-economic-discussion-national-debt-18.html

 

And of course you'll continue going through life ignorant as always. I said the debt has never once gone down... which was in reference to the official fiscal figures. I was not referring to intra-day deficiencies. It is you who is driving this unintelligent point home. All you've shown is that there is one date that has a lower debt than a previous date. Yet you can't prove that it was paid off by taxes.

I showed you a link that describes why the national debt sometimes decreases... and it has nothing to do with taxes.

So keep living the life of an arrogant, pompous ass.

 

What you said is a matter of record and exactly what I quoted. Any one can verify it themselves by clicking the link in my post. Your lying again doesn't change the truth.

 

Lol, whatever. Keep living a lie! The burden of proof is on you. I said tax dollars do not pay for maturing securities. All you have is two dates with different numbers. You have no causality whatsoever. If you can prove that the decrease was from tax dollars, I will believe you. That is why you are so annoying. I'm not trying to fight you, just trying to understand the system. And you are using a logical fallacy against me.

Prove to me tax dollars were the reason and I will bow down to your excellence!

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...t-funding-deficit-spending-4.html#post4351152

 

Lol, you are the most arrogant person here. And the funny thing is you can't prove it. You have two dates that have a discrepancy, yet you can't give me an explanation why. Show me taxes caused the decrease and I will believe you. Until then, man up, and let's debate pass this point. I would not peg you as a person that hides behind some random fallacy. I thought you wanted to know the truth.

 

For the record, I deny akphidelt accurately states the case, which is a matter of record in the link I provided.

 

For the record, Iriemon provided two dates with a discrepancy. He has yet to provide any factual proof of why there was a discrepancy. He is simply assuming it came from tax dollars, yet he has no proof. I expected more from you!

 

Shhh, I'm leaving now. I'll just let the 2 liberals slash each other throats.

 

Iriemon is an embarrassment. He acts like he knows everything, but just like his conservative counterparts the second someone provides information he doesn't know, he curls in to his world of logical fallacies. He's an embarrassment to educated liberals everywhere!

 

Mah Daddy taught me ta nevah argu wid an expert. An Ah thinks you twos is experts on each other.